Opinion page editor Rick Holmes and other writers blog about national politics and issues. Holmes & Co. is a Blog for Independent Minds, a place for a free-flowing discussion of policy, news and opinion. This blog is the online cousin of the Opinion
...

Opinion page editor Rick Holmes and other writers blog about national politics and issues. Holmes & Co. is a Blog for Independent Minds, a place for a free-flowing discussion of policy, news and opinion. This blog is the online cousin of the Opinion section of the MetroWest Daily News in Framingham, Mass. As such, our focus starts there and spreads to include Massachusetts, the nation and the world. Since successful blogs create communities of readers and writers, we hope the \x34& Co.\x34 will also come to include you.

I had a nice long conversation the other day on the subject of the national political scene. As is the wont the topic of the next presidential race came up: To Hillary or not to Hillary? —that is the question! I was talking with an avid Democrat who had not only Ms. Clinton’s nomination all sewed up, he was counting on her for two terms and was speculating on who should run in 2024. (This went to the subject of who should be Clinton’s running mate!)

We moved from that subject to the current state of GOP field. We ran down a list of damaged prospects, thoughts of another Bush running.

I think it was at that point that some fusible link in my political brain finally melted through. Says I to the Democratic donkey ploughing forward, whoa!

What was it that had me horrified and digging in my heel? I think my problem starts with the name brands involved. I heard a familiar strain in the musings of Democrat avid activist, he was a little concerned over the troublemakers who thought twice about assuming Clinton should get the party’s nomination. A “challenger” (though Clinton’s not an incumbent) could run the risk of damaging the goods in a primary contest, draw her away from a safe centrist stance to defend her Liberal bona fides. He reminded me how important the next presidency would be, how the next presidency would so likely effect the composition of the SCOTUS and so on… don’t screw this up, he seemed to be saying… me, I shouldn’t screw this up!

That question of the courts got me thinking. I think one of my favorite features of the complex and contradictory marvel that is our constitutional democracy comes about when a court justice championed by one side in our entrenched partisan political war comes around to express views and forward decisions contradicting (or maybe transcending) that simplistic divide. (My favorite example is David Souter). This contradiction/transcendence comes about when the actual principles and convictions they possess as citizens take precedence over their sense of owing to a political camp. Truth has this way of getting past pettiness.

So here’s my deal. I’m not going to concern myself with whether a Democrat or Republican gets to nominate justices. I’m going to want to hear what any candidate has in mind when they consider the task. I am not interested in any candidate who wants to get elected telling me how stupid or craven or dangerous “the other side” is. Conservative and Liberal alike I want to hear how they intend to lead the whole of this country forward to face the future. Because like I mentioned to Don in another post, the future is our immediate responsibility.